↓ Skip to main content

Clinical Effectiveness of Intravitreal Therapy With Ranibizumab vs Aflibercept vs Bevacizumab for Macular Edema Secondary to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Ophthalmology, November 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Clinical Effectiveness of Intravitreal Therapy With Ranibizumab vs Aflibercept vs Bevacizumab for Macular Edema Secondary to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion
Published in
JAMA Ophthalmology, November 2019
DOI 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.3305
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip Hykin, A. Toby Prevost, Joana C. Vasconcelos, Caroline Murphy, Joanna Kelly, Jayashree Ramu, Barry Hounsome, Yit Yang, Simon P Harding, Andrew Lotery, Usha Chakravarthy, Sobha Sivaprasad

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Other 7 8%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 35 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 33 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 September 2023.
All research outputs
#1,755,417
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Ophthalmology
#889
of 6,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,155
of 374,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Ophthalmology
#27
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,643 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 374,997 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.